Oh please, the only one butthurt here is you. I will reiterate, I am not arguing who the GOAT is because IMO you cannot declare one man the GOAT. Let's face it, current opinion is biased towards current generations. Alot of people who saw Laver at his peak have either passed away and thus are not around to push Laver's barrow or are too old to even figure out how to use a computer let alone log onto to here to argue the point. Plus, there is alot less footage of Laver than there is of Federer, again, biased towards the current generation. You are shallow man, you have a shallow view of tennis without any regard for the past. You simply see 17 and what Federer was able to do to lesser players than him and bang, you think Federer is the GOAT. I'm telling you, it runs much deeper than that, it's not that simple and I'm not going to get into it because it's been done to death on here. Even if Nadal does get to 18, I will still not argue who the GOAT is, for reasons I've already stated...again, it's not that simple.

And just for the record, Nadal has pretty much beaten Federer throughout each stage of Federer's career and pretty much on every surface.
And please spare me about Sampras fans. If Sampras' career was aligned with Federer's, he would have given as good as he got. The past 6 years have proven that Federer is human afterall...you don't think a peak Sampras would have got in on the action even against a peak Federer? He won 14 slams and finished 6 times World Champion (no. 1) in an era of polarised conditions. Let me tell you, he's no mug. Sheesh, he didn't fear anyone and he is probably the most aggressive player tennis has ever seen. All Sampras would need to do is get under Federer's skin and in his head with a couple of wins and wholla, I suspect it would be the whole Nadal ordeal for Federer all over again. What, you think Federer is superman without any weaknesses?

Which leads me to the main reason I'm replying to your rubbish...to reiterate the main point of my post that you quoted...there is more to determining a truly great player than just tennis strokes...it is a whole myriad of things, and that includes strengths and weaknesses. If you can't see that then you're a dill.

Wow I don't think you even read my post properly. BTW you really like to type don't you? I don't. But yea so much codswallop for merely stating a simple fact that Ralph was beating Fed at an early age of 17 but was losing to players who Fed was thrashing left n right. This is a textbook example of a matchup issue which the Fed-hater brigade pretend like it doesn't even exist. Unfortunately the world is not blind and they can see why Nadal beats Fed even though he's inferior and less accomplished than Fed.

And where the **** did I even hint/mention Fed being GOAT coz of his slam count? Infact I never use that in my argument to crown Fed as the GOAT. I've said multiple times that his achievements COUPLED with his COMPLETE GAME makes him the GOAT. "17>*" arguments are often used by Fed fans to shut down Fed hating trolls like you without writing a 1 page thesis.

And what's with your delusion of Pete beating Fed? Pre-pubescent Fed beat defending champ Sampras at Wim 01. Fed would beat Pete everywhere consistently except fast grass and even that is iffy for Pete. Today's surfaces he would get murdered by prime Fed, not the current version of Fed which you like to call prime.